If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You can view all our content without registering, but to post to the forum (make comments) you will need to register
-- it's free and easy!

Even in Denver, there are some ideas they've come up with that l just can't agree with. The city is about to the point where they have funding sufficient enough that they are starting to propose some projects l can't support (which doesn't matter because l don't live in Denver proper). To me, when a governmental unit has all the money they need, they start looking to frivelous things to spend on.

Even in Denver, there are some ideas they've come up with that l just can't agree with. The city is about to the point where they have funding sufficient enough that they are starting to propose some projects l can't support (which doesn't matter because l don't live in Denver proper). To me, when a governmental unit has all the money they need, they start looking to frivelous things to spend on.

What are your thoughts (if any) on Denver's struggle to retain their mass transit operators and the forthcoming service cuts that will likely result?

Even in Denver, there are some ideas they've come up with that l just can't agree with. The city is about to the point where they have funding sufficient enough that they are starting to propose some projects l can't support (which doesn't matter because l don't live in Denver proper). To me, when a governmental unit has all the money they need, they start looking to frivelous things to spend on.

Do you mind sharing some of what they’ve come up with that you disagree with?

Wow! Great article this week in the Oklahoma Gazette with OKC Parks Director Doug Kupper and former City Councilman Pete White explaining how this initiative is different from/complementary to the MAPS/ GO Bond programs and how transformational a Yes Vote for OKC Parks on March 3rd would be for the City's 165 parks.

4 states permit preregistration beginning at 17 years old:
Maine, Nevada, New Jersey and West Virginia.

5 states set another age at which an individual may preregister:
Alaska permits those under 18 to register anytime within 90 days before their 18th birthday.

Georgia, Iowa and Missouri permit registration of those who are 17.5 (if they turn 18 before the next election).

Texas permits a person who is 17 years and 10 months of age to register.

26 states do not specifically address an age for registration and instead allow an individual to register if they will turn 18 by the next election (note that this usually refers to the next general election, with some exceptions). In some states this may mean that youth could register as soon as the previous general election is over, so that could be as early as 16 years of age. Reach out to your state election officials for details.
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

North Dakota does not require individuals to register prior to the election, but to qualify as an elector an individual must be eighteen years or older on Election Day.

Why wouldn't the city government simply reduce the parks and recreation budget by the amount this tax brings in and reallocate it elsewhere? You know that police and fire unions are going to have their hands out.

Why wouldn't the city government simply reduce the parks and recreation budget by the amount this tax brings in and reallocate it elsewhere? You know that police and fire unions are going to have their hands out.

Police and fire unions actively campaigned against MAPS I through III. I don't think the GOLT bonds would have made any sense for the unions to go after as the GOLT money was supposed to create 11,000 new jobs, which seems in the long term best interests of the unions.

I think we're in a different place right now with parks and rec getting a $500K budget cut and having parks considered for closure. If this is an area the council sees as needing cuts, why would they not glom up the parks and rec budget coming from the general fund when they'll have money coming from a dedicated sales tax?

Why wouldn't the city government simply reduce the parks and recreation budget by the amount this tax brings in and reallocate it elsewhere? You know that police and fire unions are going to have their hands out.

While no initiative petition could dictate the behavior of future city councils in terms of budgetary allocations of the general fund, the ordinance presented to the voters on March 3rd does anticipate this issue (particularly since Parks is generally the first department to be cut in any economic downturn) and attempts to mitigate such a reallocation by prohibiting the funds to be utilized for mowing grass in OKC parks. Mowing grass is the largest line item in the Parks budget (roughly $15 million/year) and the amount is almost exactly equivalent to the amount which would be generated on an annual basis by a 1/8-cent dedicated fund for Parks operations, maintenance and programming. In addition, the petition prohibits the funds from being utilized in parks operated by Non-governmental organizations (in order to maximize transparency of the utilization of public tax dollars) as well as almost all capital expenditures (which was the purview of MAPS/GO BOND programs); these two additional restrictions combined with the restriction on mowing grass would make it virtually impossible to simply reduce the parks/rec budget by the same amount and reallocate it elsewhere. Hope this helps.

While no initiative petition could dictate the behavior of future city councils in terms of budgetary allocations of the general fund, the ordinance presented to the voters on March 3rd does anticipate this issue (particularly since Parks is generally the first department to be cut in any economic downturn) and attempts to mitigate such a reallocation by prohibiting the funds to be utilized for mowing grass in OKC parks. Mowing grass is the largest line item in the Parks budget (roughly $15 million/year) and the amount is almost exactly equivalent to the amount which would be generated on an annual basis by a 1/8-cent dedicated fund for Parks operations, maintenance and programming. In addition, the petition prohibits the funds from being utilized in parks operated by Non-governmental organizations (in order to maximize transparency of the utilization of public tax dollars) as well as almost all capital expenditures (which was the purview of MAPS/GO BOND programs); these two additional restrictions combined with the restriction on mowing grass would make it virtually impossible to simply reduce the parks/rec budget by the same amount and reallocate it elsewhere. Hope this helps.

Thank you for this info, was going to email my councilperson to ask Midtowner's question and now I don't have to.

While no initiative petition could dictate the behavior of future city councils in terms of budgetary allocations of the general fund, the ordinance presented to the voters on March 3rd does anticipate this issue (particularly since Parks is generally the first department to be cut in any economic downturn) and attempts to mitigate such a reallocation by prohibiting the funds to be utilized for mowing grass in OKC parks. Mowing grass is the largest line item in the Parks budget (roughly $15 million/year) and the amount is almost exactly equivalent to the amount which would be generated on an annual basis by a 1/8-cent dedicated fund for Parks operations, maintenance and programming. In addition, the petition prohibits the funds from being utilized in parks operated by Non-governmental organizations (in order to maximize transparency of the utilization of public tax dollars) as well as almost all capital expenditures (which was the purview of MAPS/GO BOND programs); these two additional restrictions combined with the restriction on mowing grass would make it virtually impossible to simply reduce the parks/rec budget by the same amount and reallocate it elsewhere. Hope this helps.

On Tuesday, Oklahoma City voters will decide on a proposed sales tax that would generate about $15 million annually for parks, ensuring all our neighborhoods and communities have safe and accessible green spaces to promote wellness and quality of life.

This one-eighth-cent sales tax for maintenance and programming would go hand in hand with the millions of dollars voters have already invested in parks. Just last year they approved MAPS 4, which includes $140 million in capital funding for new facilities, such as gardens, basketball and tennis courts and new parks.

Tuesday's vote could be a shot in the arm for the Oklahoma City Parks and Recreation Department, which is funded through a small portion of the city’s general fund, which is also the primary revenue source for police and fire protection, street maintenance and other essential services.

After considering all those critical needs, it’s easy to see why the city’s parks and recreation programs are underfunded. How underfunded? In 2019, Oklahoma City budgeted $9.5 million for 4,590 acres of parks as well as trails, gardens, aquatic centers, nature centers, athletic facilities and recreation centers. By comparison, Kansas City budgeted $72 million and Fort Worth budgeted $43 million.

If budgets from peer cities are an indication, health and wellness are a growing priority in this country, and the standard is high because parks are important to everyone. The mom with a stroller. The dog walker. The little league softball player. A group of teens meeting for basketball. An elderly couple walking to stay healthy. The dad watching his son enjoy the playground.

When properly maintained, these popular public spaces provide a safe activity hub for individuals, families or groups to improve their quality of life. A great neighborhood park is a free and open space that encourages creative play, active lifestyles, rejuvenation and the development of athletic skills. Green spaces also can offer enjoyable, restful places where people can alleviate stress, enhance their well being and improve their quality of life.

Meanwhile, parks can be good for a community’s economy. Studies show that a well-kept park can increase nearby property values up to 20% because homebuyers prefer houses that are close to green spaces. Therefore, parks improve property values and increase property tax revenue. Parks also decrease health care costs and support productivity by encouraging exercise.

Once again voters have an opportunity to advance Oklahoma City through a measure that would ensure city parks are well maintained and rich with healthy activities. Are they ready to make another investment? We’ll find out Tuesday.

What are your thoughts (if any) on Denver's struggle to retain their mass transit operators and the forthcoming service cuts that will likely result?

The cuts are already here. According to what is being reported, they currently have such high levels of mandatory overtime, drivers are just quitting for other jobs or moving elsewhere. They simply can't find enough competent, drug free, people to work the necessary hours. Under a previous director, there seemed to be a lot of feelings the driver's were abused and not treated well. A new one just started with getting the necessary drivers as top priority.

On the bright side, if this fails to pass (I'm seeing 53-46 with 72% of precincts in now), it probably at least slightly boosts the chances of the RTA vote passing whenever that comes up, and I think that is by far the more important of the two votes. I most likely would have voted for this if I was still living in OKC, but it's not the end of the world that it's probably not going to pass. The RTA vote failing would be an absolute mess.